Deadwood" is magnificently gritty in appearance and poetically obscene in language. No one ever says something as simple as "I'm hungry" without a notorious gerund between the first word and the third. But you get used to it, and it actually becomes kind of lyrical.

I'm told that Sen. Cornyn did make a point about Byrd's argument about "free speech" on the floor today: "The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia has been in the Senate a long time. Much of his service he is justly proud of. But one of the dangers of being in the Senate for a long time is that you go on record making statements which have the potential of contradicting one's current statements. Indeed, that has been the case when it comes to the senior Senator from West Virginia.

"For example, the very procedure which he now decries as nuking free speech, he himself championed in 1977, in 1979, in 1980, in 1987. Hardly can it be true that today trying to reinstate majority rule as he himself did on those four occasions on the dates of the years mentioned, hardly can that be nuking free speech. In fairness, he ought to concede what we are doing is nothing radical. Indeed, it is doing the same thing he himself did four times earlier."

I'm not going to get in the middle of Ramesh's tussle with this Goldstein guy. But I would like to offer one modest defense raised by Ramesh's post below. The essence of Goldstein's epic broadside against Ramesh is that Ramesh is essentially a partisan hack. Ramesh's attack on Tribe, according to Goldstein, was without merit and therefore Ramesh's only motive could have been to discredit Tribe in advance of the coming judicial nomination battles. Anybody who knows Ramesh understands that this interpretation says far more about Goldstein than it does about Ramesh. But consider the fact that Ramesh is against the so-called nuclear option (as is the magazine). Presumably, if Ramesh were a hired gun for rightwing judges he would have no problem adopting this argument. Indeed, it would be far easier -- and more useful to the cause -- for him to adopt this position then go so far out of his way to go after Larry Tribe.

Anyway, I don't want to get in the crossfire -- and I don't want Goldstein registering all the JonahGoldberg.com domain names either. I just think that arguments about motives are usually silly and for them to be true you have to find a larger pattern of behavior that fits that motive. No one who's read Ramesh over the years could find any such pattern because he's an intellectually honest guy.

Cornyn does a fine job of responding to most of Byrd's contentions. (I say this although--not that I wish to re-open this debate!--I side with Byrd and not Cornyn on the question of whether the Senate ought to change the filibuster rules.) It seems to me that the senator is letting Byrd get away with an awfully base-stealing use of the concepts of "free speech" and "dissent."

Supposedly ending filibusters of judges "threatens the rights to dissent, to unlimited debate and to freedom of speech." Because it could lead to the end of filibusters for other measures, ending judicial filibusters "could rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy." Ending filibusters "would mute dissent and gag opposition voices." There are several more such references to "freedom of speech."

But of course under any proposed rules change senators would have the right to speak out and to vote as they wish. They would be forced to allow an up-or-down vote where 51 votes prevailed. But if that's an attack on free speech, so is a 60-vote rule. Take the case where 61 senators want to vote to confirm a judge and 39 senators object. Under the current rules, those 61 senators can cut off debate, hold a vote, and prevail. So, on Byrd's account, it would seem that those 39 senators had their rights to freedom of speech trampled on. If 99 senators want to do something and Russ Feingold objects, Byrd's version of freedom of speech would require letting Feingold have his way. Since Byrd is willing to compromise on this idiosyncratic concept of free speech, he ought to explain why his compromise is preferable to Bill Frist's. And merely invoking that concept (repeatedly) can't get him to his preferred conclusion.

I thought this point was made, but apparently it wasn't:

Are you and Derb forgetting that the personal accounts being proposed by Pres. Bush are VOLUNTARY? Slothful folks like Derb won't have to take them; they'll still get their SS check every month. To be clear, though, I'm with you, Jonah. Freedom isn't free. Taking care of your own money is a small price to pay for ownership and a smackdown of Leviathan. Eyes on the prize, people! Anyone who has a 401K and "gets it" on an elementary level already understands the basics of these proposed accounts. They'd probably be willing to at least take a look and see how much "work" it would be to manage the SS private account. It sounds like the choice of investments would be much more limited than most 401Ks, anyway, so folks who are only mildly averse to putting forth any effort might still find them palatable.

I can't help but comment on the evolution of Goldstein's rhetorical strategy. First he said (go to rameshponnuru.com and you can follow all the links!) that my article on Tribe was "profoundly silly." (Me, I think that what's silly is the use of that intensifier before "silly.") It was just a profoundly silly article that can't be taken seriously, which is, I guess, why Goldstein has written 17 pages about it--that number is not an exaggeration, by the way--and bought all those websites. When I responded to the "profoundly silly" post, he came back with a post that said that my response had caused his opinion of my levelheadedness to sink. He was writing, you see, more in sorrow than in anger. In the next go-round, he commented that he had never heard of me before my article. I'm a nothing! A nobody!

So let's reconstruct the chronology here. Goldstein had never heard of me. Then he read my article, which both struck him as "profoundly silly" and left him with an impression that I am at least somewhat levelheaded. Then this impression faded away. And now, of course, he is talking about how there have to be "consequences" for all this silliness. This sort of thing certainly played a role in my decision not to match Goldstein page for page.

Okay, that's all (unless Goldstein starts making threats to my puppies). (Note to Goldstein: I don't actually have any puppies. You can scratch that off the to-do list.)

Tom Goldstein has another post. The interesting thing about this one is that he announces that he has bought a bunch of websites with my name in them--rameshponnuru.com, etc. Each of these sites will direct people to his posts and to links to my responses. When people enter my name in "Google and various search engines," they will read the stuff at his sites. There have to be "consequences" for my "reputation" and "credibility" after the terrible things I've supposedly done. I don't know that all that many people enter my name in searches, and if they do I suspect they'll be predisposed to take my side of the argument. But anyone who wants to bookmark his pages, be my guest. If Professor Tribe wants to write a letter to National Review, I'll be happy to do a detailed response and everyone will be free to draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, I don't foresee having tons more to say after this series of posts.

I'm still going to pass, that is, on reading and responding in detail to Goldstein's posts, because, as mentioned before, I don't think they're worth my time (or my readers' time). I know that sounds insulting, and obviously I don't mind that it does, but the truth is that there are a lot of posts out there that one doesn't have the time for. A while back I read a post, for example, attacking something I had written about the politics of health care. The post didn't really have much to do with anything I had written. This guy explained that I really knew better than what I had written--I really understood that we needed much more government involvement in health care--but clearly Rich Lowry wouldn't let me say it. I'm not going to waste time responding to posts that foolish. That's my judgment here, too. And while I understand why Goldstein objects to that judgment, I'm standing by it--with one exception, which I'll get to in my next post.

(If Tribe decides not to send a letter, by the way, well, that's his prerogative too. The only difference I can see between his not responding to me and my not responding to Goldstein is that Tribe made a point of telling me he looked forward to refuting my article. I never said anything similar about Goldstein.)

From a reader:

Derb's shock, like many other things, reminds me of a moment from the Simpsons. Homer is baby-proofing the home to protect Maggie. To keep her away from the electric outlets, he draws bunny heads around them. Marge points out that Maggie isn't scared of bunnies. Homer responds, "she will be."

The mastermind of the Bali bombing has received 30 months in jail. This amounts to about 1 week for every murder victim. The Australian public is not amused. Meanwhile the guy's followers are outraged. Belmont Club's Wretchard has got the details.

I get a lot of email from readers angry with conservatives who (allegedly) argue that the ends justify the means. I also recall that under Clinton, lots of conservatives complained about the same thing.

Having read quite a bit about pre-WWII liberalism, I know that many liberals and progressives used to explicitly endorse the notion that the ends can justify the means and the spirit of ends-justifying-the-means suffuses vast areas of liberal public policy and, often, conservative foreign policy.

Anyway, does anyone know about an essay or book specificly on this concept and the arguments which swirl around it? I think it would make for fascinating intellectual history to trace the concept and its critics throughout Western history. Maybe someone has done that? If so please let me know I would really love to read it.

Email from Poppa G:

I think I once emailed you that the epitome of sloth was Oblomov, the hero and title of the mid-19th century novel by Goncharov, a Ruissian classic. Oblomov, a wealthy landowner living in St Petersburg, succumbed to sloth so that he never wore anything but bathrobe and slippers, reclining on his couch and ignoring his friends' supplications to do something about his landed estate, which was falling into ruin. He eventually dies, of course. His slothful life gave rise to the condition known as Oblomovshchina, extreme sloth, and it was used as a metaphor for Russia's indifference to its future, especailly among the upper classes. I find that I am increasingly in the grip of one of the most powerful forces in the universe, inertia.

Bank essentially sets mans pants on fire and makes him think he's dying but hasn't apologized yet.

From a reader:

Hey Jonah,

As the Times article mentioned, the University of Chicago has just supplied
us with a number of bathrooms for those "uncomfortable" about classifying
themselves in with the hegemonic taxonomies of bourgeois heteronormativity.
The new bathrooms are private and infinitely nicer than the bathrooms for
those of us who have timidly accepted the social construction of our
maleness or femaleness. They are so much nicer, in fact, that I use them
regularly. When I was confronted about using the bathroom a confused
looking "somebody" I simply replied, "I'm not comfortable calling myself a
man on this campus."

Derb -- Again, I have considerable respect for the argument from sloth but, a few objections:

* as you intimate, the argument from sloth overlaps mightily with the argument from stupidity and/or ignorance; "I'm too stupid to figure out what to do with my money" is very close to "I'm too lazy to figure it out."

* if conservatives are willing to concede that Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves when it comes to providing for their future then we've really redefined basic economic conservative dogma.

* Just because the government system is "easier" now doesn't mean the private sector-and-government couldn't make a more privatized system easier still.

* sloth for me is not an argument for sloth for thee. By what right can a lazy person say other non-lazy people must have big chunks of their money taken from them for an absolutely terrible retirement plan?

* similarly saying government policies for everyone should be shaped around your own personal preferences and personal tastes is vaguely immoral and never strong argumentation. If you believe that the system should be flexible to your priorities you should favor a more privatized system rather than a one-size-fits all approach. Make room for the industrious individualists and thrifty savers as well as the sloths rather than say everyone must work within the slothful system.

The Bush administration is considering a more aggressive effort to foster opposition inside Iran and seeking ways to use a new $3-million fund to support activists without exposing them to the risk of arrest.

No work for you!

Gerard Baker's got a good column. Here's the opener:

ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People’s Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos.

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” he asks.

“Well, there’s the aqueduct,” somebody says, thoughtfully. “The sanitation,” says another. “Public order,” offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they’re finished they’re not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

I can’t help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

Some readers may remember a long column I did on how Pragmatic liberalism has evolved into an obsession with the cultural and social outliers rather than the reasonable man. I wrote:

The reasonable man's behavior was the group average of moral conduct in a very moral country. Today, all of our arguments are about how much the society must bend to the behaviors and attitudes of the man of the fringe, the outlier, the arrow that sails farthest from the bulls-eye. Schools are paralyzed by the question of what to do about the atheist, the homosexual, the handicapped, while the average kids — i.e., most of them — are given short shrift.

Anyway, here's a good example of what I'm talking about From the New York Times:

SAN FRANCISCO - Political epiphanies can occur in unexpected places. For Riki Dennis, a 35-year-old humanities student who is transsexual, it was the women's room at a rest stop on Highway 101 north of Santa Barbara.

"The boyfriend hit me, even in mellow California," said Ms. Dennis, who was in the early stages of becoming female when she was assaulted by a stranger after using the women's room. "I said, 'Sir, I have no designs on your girlfriend.' I just want to use the bathroom."

Ms. Dennis, whose lowish voice is now the lone betrayal of her birth sex, is a foot soldier on a new political frontier: the campaign to establish gender-neutral bathrooms in public places. The idea is to make sure that transgender people (an umbrella term that can include transsexuals, cross-dressers and those with a fluid, androgynous identity who do not consider themselves completely male or female) can use bathrooms without fear of harassment.

To see if Dan Schorr had burst into flames after he wrote this column. The last line about Bush and the "Iraq Effect": "He may have had it right."

Note: Stoopid typo fixed. Shouldn't have been posting pre-coffee.

(Sorry for continuing a thread from yesterday that probably doesn't deserve it)

I just saw Ramesh's partial defense of Geohegan's laziness. I certainly agree that Swallow was too hard on him. Indeed, I recall that Derb made a somewhat similar argument against reform on much the same grounds. Nevertheless, as a general principle I think this is a terrible line of argument for conservatives to endorse -- save to ratify the mere fact that it does in fact exist and therefore needs to dealt with.

How are conservatives going to possibly make any headway about the need for smaller government and more individual responsibility if we're prepared to stipulate that it's a respectable position to be too slothful to keep your own money and hand-it-down to your children. I mean we're not talking about voluntarism in local soup kitchens to replace government programs, we're talking about being interested in how their own money is allocated -- for them.

Bradley Smith's warning that the FEC may extend McCain-Feingold speech restrictions to the blogosphere, linked to earlier by Kathryn, reinforces a point made by Jonah: far from welcoming the rise of the blogosphere, Democrats view it as yet another burgeoning threat to their media monopoly.

From the CNET article: "Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a 'bizarre' regulatory process now is under way."

And from the interview portion of the article, Smith said: "This time, we couldn't muster enough votes to appeal the judge's decision. We appealed parts of her decision, but there were only three votes to appeal the Internet part (and we needed four). There seem to be at least three commissioners who like this." [And these three commissioners are Democrats.]

Smith does go on to say, "I don't think the Democratic commissioners are sitting around saying that the Internet is working to the advantage of the Republicans." But I think he's just being diplomatic, in hopes of still changing some of their minds.

Noam Scheiber of the New Republic is worried that Bush might win with a compromise proposal that creates "add-on" accounts. After a few years, he warns, Republicans will propose letting people put their payroll taxes into these accounts. The Bush plan will triumph on the installment plan. As Scheiber notes, Paul Krugman has the same fear.

It seems to me that the underlying logic of the Scheiber-Krugman position is to oppose IRAs and 401(k)s, or at least to oppose any increase in the number of people who have them. The more people have them, and the more experience people have with them, the easier it will be for Republicans to propose letting people deposit payroll-tax money into them. Scheiber needs to worry more about the possibility that people will become fonder of investing their own money and less about the particular mechanisms by which this happens.

As for the political likelihood of this scenario unfolding, I'd say it's up in the air. I think it would be hard for Democrats to oppose add-on accounts, especially if they were targeted at the poor. That was a Democratic idea from the start. The bigger problem would be getting Republicans to support the idea. I'm for it, but my view is not prevalent among Republicans.

One thing I find interesting about the debate is that many Republicans support personal accounts because of what one might call a dynamic analysis of the politics of the investor class. But they haven't incorporated that analysis into their personal-account strategy. By all means, for example, conservatives should try to make sure to make the maximum size of the account as high as possible. But if the whole underlying political theory is correct, then we have reason to think that whatever number we start with, we'll end up with a higher number over the long run.

So to with "add on" accounts. To conservatives who say that they would "do nothing to solve Social Security's fiscal problem," I would respond that that's the case only if we assume that expansions of the new investor class don't have salutary political effects--which, again, is the theory that most of these same people hold (or think they hold).

There are good reasons for conservatives to prefer personal accounts "carved out" of Social Security to "add-on" accounts, but ultimately I'm for almost anything that expands the number of people in the markets and the extent of their involvement. (And Scheiber ought to be opposed to anything that does those things.) But if a passable deal required a majority of Republicans to come around to that position, it's an open question whether it would happen.

This could be a good thing. Unleash all bloggers on the idiocy of McCain-Feingold and the FEC.

I've got my popcorn and my mouse ready to watch the battle.

Just participated in a press/"opinion leader" conference call with the senator. Some highlights:

1. The senator wants personal accounts--and he's against any bill that doesn't have them. “I will not vote for it, and it will not get out of the United States Senate.”

2. On the Democratic line that there's no major problem: "Even among seniors, it's not working."

3. In response to a question about falling poll numbers for personal accounts, Santorum says that the president has not been making the case for them over the last two weeks--although he says that is starting to change. We knew the other side would be "armed and dangerous."

4. He thinks the argument has to be about "retirement security," not about the program's "solvency" or "trust fund," which is "green-eyeshade talk."

5. Democrats are happy to talk about raising the payroll-tax cap because "that's a safe field for them." That's all they're talking about.

6. Santorum did not seem to find the idea of raising the payroll-tax cap and lowering the rate appealing. Since the two policies would counteract each other in terms of revenue, he didn't see the point. [But wouldn't the question be whether the combination won some Democratic votes?--RP]

7. Greenspan was "tremendously helpful."

8. Santorum is "happy to campaign on this in 2006" if it comes to that--even in the second-most senior-heavy state in the country.

After I responded to his attack on me, calling it slippery and dishonest, Goldstein issued two responses--one in the comments section of his original post and one new 9-page (!) post. Goldstein says his "personal opinion" of my "levelheadedness was higher" before I responded to him on the Corner. Looking back on it, I do regret the "slippery and dishonest" comment. It's incomplete! Goldstein is also rock-dumb.

I'm not going to produce a 15-page response to go through every error Goldstein no doubt makes. I've only read a third of his endless commentary and skimmed the rest. But that's enough for me to see that there's no point in reading the whole thing thoroughly to see if he's made any valid criticisms of me. Let me select two easy-to-explain examples of the quality of thinking (and reading) we're dealing with here.

1) Goldstein alleged that my article was an attempt to weaken Tribe in advance of a confirmation fight over Rehnquist's replacement. I noted, a bit sardonically, that this alleged motivation of mine required me to believe that no other liberal law professors would step forward to play Tribe's role in such a fight. In other words, Goldstein's account of my motivation made no sense. Goldstein, totally missing the point, now writes this in his comments section: "[Ponnuru's] hyperbole does run a little wild with the idea that my post suggested that Tribe was the only person who would oppose Bush's nominees."

2) My article, you'll recall, concerned Tribe's 2003 claim to have made a daring Ninth Amendment argument to the Supreme Court in 1980, even though he faced pressure from the establishment not to make it. I went through evidence showing that Tribe didn't do any such thing, while plenty of other lawyers did. At one point in my article, I compared Tribe's brief to the Court with other briefs, noting that those other briefs made much more extensive Ninth Amendment arguments than Tribe did. I therefore noted some of the points those other briefs mentioned and Tribe's did not.

For Goldstein, this portion of my article "just represents Ponnuru's view that he knows better than Tribe how to argue a constitutional law case in the Supreme Court." He then expands on this idea: "If you believe that, then by nature you're going to believe inconsolably that Ponnuru is right about all of this and Tribe is wrong. (Tribe did win the case, incidentally.)" First of all, re "inconsolably": I do not think that word means what Goldstein thinks it means. Second--and Goldstein should read this next passage slowly: Obviously I'm not saying that Tribe made a mistake in how he argued his case before the Supreme Court. He told me, in a comment I quote in the article, that he had figured out a way to argue the case before the Supreme Court without invoking the Ninth Amendment. That, he said, was the wisest thing to do given the prevailing view of the Ninth Amendment. I'm not at all second-guessing that judgment. Listening to the counsels of prudence may have been the right thing to do! But having done that, don't go around saying how you bravely ignored those counsels. The problem isn't with how Tribe argued the case, but with how he later misrepresented what he had done.

It's also worth noting that Goldstein's zeal leads him to make arguments for Tribe that Tribe has already cut off! Goldstein advances a cockamamie argument that Tribe was trying to talk about the Ninth Amendment at the Supreme Court but was cut off. But this means we now have three different stories. Tribe's 2003 article reaches its focal point with what he "dared to say" at the Supreme Court (not what he had daringly tried to say but wasn't quite able to say). In a 2005 interview with me, Tribe said he had figured out how to make the argument without invoking the Ninth Amendment. And then there's Goldstein's theory.

Goldstein keeps saying that he never "talked" to Tribe before writing these comments. Let's hope Tribe comes up with something better when he gets around to refuting my article, as he has promised to do.

Now this is an encouraging story. I won't hold my breath for applause from Ted Kennedy.

Iraqi troops have spread their control over Mosul, according to Interior Minister Falah al-Naqeeb.

Insurgents controlled Mosul, the country’s second largest city last November, after overrunning its 12 police stations.

“Mosul was on the point of collapse from the security point of view and under threat from organized gangs,” the minister said in an interview.

“The Interior Ministry was forced to take urgent measures, ferrying troops and commandos who have managed to return tranquility and stability to the city,” Naqeeb said.

The minister said the troops have now established “an intelligence and information” gathering center in the city which is receiving full cooperation from residents.

Mr. Pryor was sent up -- actually he's on the bench now, because he was given a recessed appointment. He was sent up, and it was made very, very clear, he was there simply as a symbol. He's a nice enough person. I have met him. He's a pleasant person and all of that, but sent as a symbol and packaged by the White House in a way that we want to have a symbolic ideological position on this independent court. I mean, that almost guaranteed there would be opposition. We'll go back now. He has been on the court for a few months. We'll go and look at the decisions he has written since he's been there.

Judging from interviews (mostly with people outside the administration but very close to it) and observation of its behavior, the strategy is clearly to approach the issue step-by-step. The first step is to persuade the public that the program has a serious problem. Once the public gets there, the next step will be to persuade it that Bush's reform is superior to alternatives such as raising taxes. Top Republican officials say that they think that the first step is actually going quite well. Their reading of the polls has the public thinking that the problem is serious, the issue at the top of the national agenda, and the Republican disadvantage on the who-do-you-trust-to-deal-with-the-issue question shrinking. They also think that the Democratic no-crisis line has softened, especially over the last week.

Bush and his top aides have steadier nerves than most Republicans do. They demonstrated that during the 2004 campaign. I'm inclined to believe that they really are confident right now, and not just putting on a show--which doesn't, of course, mean that their confidence will turn out to have been warranted when this is all over.

For an analysis that I think tracks quite closely with what I'm hearing from the administration, check out Patrick Ruffini's blog.

RICHMOND, Va. - A federal appeals court on Tuesday awarded $350,000 in attorney's fees to a former Duke University woman football kicker who had won a $2 million judgment from the school and then lost it on appeal.

Heather Sue Mercer in 2000 won $2 million in a sex-discrimination case against the school, claiming she was cut from Duke's football team because she was a woman. Duke argued on appeal that sex discrimination law does not include punitive damages, and in 2002 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, leaving Mercer with just $1 in compensatory damages.

From a reader:

The Die Welt article got me thinking about translation software. Here is what just three successive translations effected by Google will do:

Original: Jonah Goldberg is without doubt the most talented writer working in the American media today.

To German: Jonah Goldberg ist außen Zweifel der begabteste Verfasser, der heute in den amerikanischen Mitteln arbeitet.

German to French: Le Jonah montagne d'or est dehors un doute l'auteur le plus doué qui travaille aujourd'hui dans les moyens américains.

French to English: Jonah mountain of gold is a doubt outside the most gifted author who works today in average American.

Keep going, and you'll end up with a Ralph Nader speech.

From a Portland local paper:

Since December, patrons who order Jack Daniel's whiskey at Gino's, the Sellwood restaurant known for its pasta and mammoth Caesars, have been asked to try a brand with no affiliation to President Bush. (Brown-Forman, the company that distills JD, supported W in 2004; earlier, Bush named the company's former CEO ambassador to Austria.) "It wasn't an easy decision, because a lot of our customers drink Jack Daniel's—and my own drink was Jack and Coke," says Gino's owner Mark Accuardi. "But we sleep better at night."

Has anybody ever truth-squadded Debka about how often they're right? I don't go there often but it seems like whenever they "make" big news it turns out to be wrong. Anyway, they're reporting for what it's worth:

Sources in Beirut report Syria has reinforced units deployed on hills overlooking Lebanese capital. DEBKAfile’s military sources have also sighted unusual Syrian military movements in the last 24 hours in Lebanon and Syria.

This article in today's edition of the Berlin newspaper Die welt (entitled “When we win, Syria’s regime will fall”) is well worth reading. First of all, it explains that the ultimate ambition of the Lebanese demonstrators is regime change in Damascus:

Wenn die Syrer den Libanon verlassen, dann "ist das auch das Ende des syrischen Regimes", sagt Alan Merhi. Alle Anwesenden geben ihm recht - denn es ist Geld aus dem Libanon, mit dem sich das Baath-Regime in Damaskus finanziert. "Sie kontrollieren die Casinos, die Häfen, sie nehmen 50 Prozent unserer Steuern, sie haben sich an den 40 Milliarden Dollar bedient, die dem Land nach dem Bürgerkrieg für den Wiederaufbau geliehen wurden", sagt Merhi. Gerade das mache die Lage gefährlich. "Die Syrer werden nicht ohne Gewalt gehen. Sie werden versuchen, im Libanon einen neuen Bürgerkrieg zu entfachen. Aber es wird diesmal nicht funktionieren."

(When the Syrians leave Lebanon, that “will also spell the end of the Syrian regime,” says Alan Merhi (a 23 year old graphic design student camping out on the square, JL). All the others agree with him – it’s Lebanese money that pays for the Baath-regime in Damaskus. “They control the casinos, the harbours, they take 50 percent of our taxes, they took the $40 billion in reconstruction loans that the country received after the end of the civil war,” says Merhi. That makes the situation all the more dangerous. “The Syrians won’t leave without a fight. They will try to start a new civil war in Lebanon. But this time round they won’t succeed.”)

And again in the final paragraph:

"Sie wollen Zwietracht säen, Schlägereien anfangen", sagt Eddie. Aber "keine Chance, wir halten zusammen. Bevor wir aufgeben, hat Assad in Damaskus das Handtuch geworfen."

(“They want to create discord, start riots,” says Eddie. But “no chance, we’ll stick together. Before we’re through, Assad will have thrown in the towel in Damascus.”)

Beyond this remarkable embrace by the Arab street of the Bush doctrine of regime change, however, there is also a reference to a story which, if true, would be extremely significant, and perhaps a sign that Baby Assad may be losing his grip:

Vor allem aber habe die Jugend in Damaskus ihre Augen auf Beirut gerichtet. "Die Syrer sind ja auch Gefangene ihres Regimes, wie wir", sagt er. "Vor zwei Tagen haben in Damaskus Studenten gegen das Regime demonstriert, so etwas hat es noch nie gegeben. Jetzt sind sie wahrscheinlich im Gefängnis, denn seither gab es keine Aktionen mehr."

(“The eyes of young people in Damascus are fixed on Beirut right now. “The Syrians are as much prisoners of their regime as we are, after all,” he says. “Two days ago in Damascus students staged a protest against the regime, something that has never happened before. Most likely, they’re all in jail now, because since then there have been no new demonstrations.)

From a reader:

Jonah,

The common complaint of Stewart and the anti-hygiene anti-war crowd seems to be that the freedom of Iraqis was an after the fact rationalization for the war. It got me thinking, so I did some heavy research and was quite surprised to learn that the military operation was not named “Operation Iraqi WMD”! Apparently it was called—get this!—Operation Iraqi Freedom.

And even the currency goes pornographic.

("Is that a buffalo nickle in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?" -- the Couch).

After several of us piled on Andrew Stuttaford yesterday, it occurred to me that we should give him (and Justice Kennedy) this: The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments" at least appears to pose a problem for originalists--at least for those originalists who believe that the every provision of the Constitution must be enforced by the federal courts (or must be read in a way that makes such enforcement possible). The language is vague in a way that allows it to be read as incorporating a kind of principle of, well, evolution. Does the amendment ban punishments that were thought cruel and unusual at the time of ratification, or those considered cruel and unusual today, or some class of "objectively" cruel and unusual punishments (however those would be determined)? I'm not sure that knowing that we should be guided by the plain meaning of the words, as historically recovered, gets us all or even most of the way to an answer.

One possible answer, at least for those of us who don't have a court-centered view of the Constitution, is that to the extent a provision is vague the courts have less warrant for judicial review under it. But I can't see any plausible answer to the question that justifies casting aside both the historical practice of allowing the death penalty for juveniles and the judgment of legislatures that the practice should be continued.

Actually, Jonah, there has been at least one attempt to defend Professor Tribe. It’s by Tom Goldstein, who notes in a partial disclosure that he “regularly work[s] with Larry Tribe on Supreme Court litigation.” His defense adopts several strategies to sidestep the issue of scholarly misconduct:

1) Mischaracterize what I wrote. Goldstein says that my criticism of Tribe is merely that he “very strongly implied” in 2003 that he had made a bold Ninth Amendment argument in a 1980 case when he didn’t. That’s part of the criticism in my article. But it’s not the entirety of it. And it's important to note that it's not the case that Tribe wrote one stray sentence or paragraph that strongly implied something false. The whole Tribe article makes no sense except as an attempt to portray his record in the 1980 case as different than it was. For example, since Tribe didn’t make anything close to the bold Ninth Amendment argument he later claimed to have made, there is ample reason to doubt Tribe’s 2003 account of having withstood pressure from powerful figures to back away from that argument.

2) Mischaracterize what Tribe wrote. That 2003 “essay . . . is actually about the death of Tribe’s father—a subject that Ponnuru essentially back-handedly mocks.” First of all, Tribe's essay was not simply “about the death of Tribe’s father” and did not purport to be. It was about how that death gave Tribe the courage to be bold before the Supreme Court. I take it that Goldstein chooses the locution “essentially back-handedly mocks” since he can’t quote any examples of my actually front-handedly mocking the topic of Tribe’s father’s death. I did not mock that topic in any way. (Goldstein’s decision not to link to my article was strategically wise.) I didn’t, for example, suggest that Tribe’s treatment of it was “over the top,” as Goldstein does. I do, at one point, say that the "incident" which my article concerns—Tribe’s publication of an essay that seems to falsify his record—was “weird.”

3) Speculate about my motives. Goldstein believes that I am trying to damage Tribe in advance of a confirmation battle over Chief Justice Rehnquist’s replacement. I’m supposed to be under the impression that if Tribe’s credibility is damaged, there will be no other liberal law professors to write op-eds and testify against whoever Bush nominates. That’s nuts. I did the story because I thought it was an interesting story. Its timing reflects when I learned about the story.

My article stuck very closely to Tribe’s own words and to the record of the Supreme Court case involved. When I had to characterize, e.g., legal briefs, I tried to do so in as restrained and sober a way as possible, allowing for evidence that went against my thesis. (There was a very little bit of that.) I did not speculate about Tribe’s own motives. I did not do a lot of editorializing. I did not, for example, call Tribe slippery and dishonest. I am willing to say that, however, about one of his defenders.

Afghanistan Wednesday named its first female provincial governor, a step forward in the slow political progress of women since the fall of the Taliban more than three years ago.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate said Wednesday they expect to pass a bill by the end of March legalizing embryonic stem cell research, and predicted they will have the votes to override an expected veto by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.

William Saletan argues that Justice Scalia, in arguing that the Court has an inconsistent view of the capacities of minors, is guilty of an inconsistency of his own. Scalia’s dissent in the juvenile death-penalty case notes that the Court has struck down parental-notification laws because some minors are capable of making the abortion decision themselves just as adults are. He asks how the Court can deny that some minors are capable of committing crimes for which they should be held responsible, just as adults are. Saletan argues that Scalia’s criticism does not apply to every justice—which Scalia didn’t say. Saletan also says of Scalia that “by taking the opposite side in both cases, he’s flop-flipped.”

As phrased, Saletan’s conclusion is just a non sequitur. Saletan assumes that what’s driving the outcomes of these cases is a view of the capacities of minors. But what’s driving Scalia’s decisions is not a theory about the capacities of minors. Rather, he has a theory about which branch of government the Constitution gives the power to make those determinations. There’s no inconsistency in finding that the Constitution lets legislatures both pass parental-notification laws on abortion and expose juvenile offenders to the death penalty. And there’s no reason why a justice who finds these things can’t point out the inconsistencies on the other side.

Here endeth the lesson.

Nod to Instapundit.

My column on how the blogger euphoria is deserved but misplaced. Money graf is at the end and I am prepared to defend it against friend and foe alike:

Left-wing bloggers believe they are part of the same "revolution" as right-wing bloggers are. They're not. The conservative blogs are the shock troops of a decades-long battle to seize back the culture. Conservatives have always had to rely on "alternative media" — magazines, AM radio, blogs — because the Mainstream Media closed the door to conservatives. And even when they let a few token ones in, they had to be labeled "conservative" first and journalists a distant second. The lefty blogs are something else entirely. They represent — much like the still-lame liberal talk radio and the new liberal think tanks — an attempt to copycat conservative successes. Their fight is not with the monolithic mainstream media (or academia) but with the usurpers. Politics is not a battle of technology. It is a battle of ideas, and therein lies all the difference.

Purple-fingered Iraqis voting on their own destiny, and Lebanese demonstrating in Martyrs Square for freedom from Syrian overlordship, are the latter-day heirs of the John Paul II, for the quarter-century of liberation which is now shaking the Middle East began with him, when the brand-new Polish Pope made a pilgrimage to his homeland in the summer of 1979.

The 1970’s, if not quite a low, dishonest decade, was a low, confused one. The United States was mired in Nixonian détente and Carterian weakness. The Soviet Union, though we now know it was exhausted, seemed on the march, acquiring clients in Africa and rattling its rockets at Western Europe. John Paul II rewrote the political equation. His mere presence in Poland was an affront to the officially atheistic regime. He drew crowds of up to one million and told the Poles that they were men, not new Soviet men.

The consequences were both immediate and long-term. Solidarity, Poland’s first independent labor union, was founded in 1980, inspired by John Paul II’s visit. The authorities crushed it, but its spirit lived on. In 1989, most of the Eastern European dictatorships washed away. The Soviet Union and South Africa soon followed; later, Afghanistan, the Ukraine and Iraq. All of these countries had their own dissident movements, or outside help, or both. Some changed peacefully, some with rebellions, some with wars. But John Paul II led the way.

"I want to reach out to people who are worried about values," Dean said. "We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born."

I've noticed this thread for a bit in The Corner and feel that I need to throw my two cents in for whatever you deem it's worth.

I'm a Physical Therapist by training and during school we used cadavers to study anatomy and physiology. It was there that I truly became convinced of God's creation in the human design and function. I've always thought it a shame that the only people who get to view this miracle of human engineering are medical, PT, nursing etc. students.

When Body Worlds was recently in Los Angeles, I made the trip to see it while returning my daughter to school in S. CA. I can only say that it was wonderful. To see these dissected humans posed and "exposed" if you will to reveal structure and anatomy was wonderful. I felt that they were tastefully displayed according to whatever the "artist" intended to show. It's my impression that Mr von Hagens is an anatomist first and artist second but uses both science and art to create a combination of art and science that is truly educational and inspiring.

I guess it's not for everyone though but when I was there I was able to show a group of school children the complicated structures of the skull with the brain and spinal cords. Their teacher thanked me and I asked her what the response of the kids were, that is, were they uncomfortable.

She said they were a little quiet at first but then had taken to filling out the questionnaires the Science Museum had sent.

There was a small part that showed how this process took place. Everything I saw told me that these people who'd donated their remains were treated with respect and dignity in the preservation and modeling process. It's a very labor intensive process and I can imagine that having a larger facility to work in would be very amenable.

A part that you particularly might find interesting and one both my wife (who'd gone some months earlier) found was the display of a pregnant woman. This was very respectfully done in a small alcove off to the side. The woman had known that she might not live as a result of her pregnancy and asked that this be done if she died. It's a dissected view of the mother and baby in situ. Additionally there were stages of development of babies from 1 week to term. There was a note that said that these were NOT the result of abortions but of illness and/or injury to the mother. We both noted when we were there on separate times the number of women who were looking at the 4 week to 7 month stages. You could almost hear them thinking, "So this is what you looked like when I aborted you." In my mind this was such a great exhibit to show what life REALLY is even when you use dead subjects.

I know I'm going on here, but one more thing. I detect in a few postings here and in other blogs a "connection" between von Hagens German heritage, Nazism, Poland and the Holocaust. I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with this characterization. I'm willing to keep an open mind if something surfaces such as von Hagen being a neo-Nazi or something similar, but in my mind, from what I've seen and what I know, this is truly an educational/artistic endeavor that doesn't deserve such condemnation.

So, I don't know what your "No comment" meant, but I took it to mean that you disapproved. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. I respect your writing and thinking an awful lot and read TC every day. I'll tell you what, if I've mis-read what you or the other denizens of TC have said regarding this, I'll subscribe to NRODT and make a donation to the USO. How's that? Fair enough?

This discussion the two of you are having regarding Kathryn violating her own ban reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's The Life Of Brian where the one guy is being stoned to death for saying the word "Jehovah" out loud, and eventually he frustrates John Cleese (who's in charge of the stoning) so much that he blurts out "…if you say Jehovah once more…."

What the hell is happening to liberalism?

I see (via TKS) that Matt Yglesias is putting on his realist hat to poo-poo the possibility that Lebanon might actually become a democracy. He writes " I feel like there are a few skeptical notes that ought to be sounded here. One is that, near as I can tell, there's no really clear sense in which the Syrian sphere of influence in Lebanon is bad for the United States of America. [Emphasis his!]

First, "sphere of influence" is an awfully nice Orwellian way to describe thousands of troops and intelligence operatives who maintain a climate of fear as they bilk Lebanon of its wealth and mock its sovereignty.

Second, I think you could make all sorts of realist arguments about why it's in America's interest that Lebanon becomes a major domino in the falling chain of dominos leading toward liberty and prosperity for hundreds of millions of Arabs. Economic growth in the region (and the world), friendlier regimes, an exit strategy for our unpopular-but-necessary support for Israel: all of these things show up on my list (Jim has others).

But that's not the point. Since when are liberals supposed to make "let 'em rot" arguments about people living under the yoke of tyrrannical regimes? In a way, I suppose, Yglesias sounds a bit like the Cold War lefties who insisted the Czechs, Poles, East Germans et al. had things pretty good under the Soviets so why should we care so much about "captive nations" and all that. But whether the analogy holds or not, Yglesias really does seem to be expressing what can reasonably be called a new liberal America-firstism (in fairness to historical accuracy we should note that many liberals were America Firsters the first time around too). When some conservatives in the 1990s expressed skepticism about Clinton's adventures in Bosnia and Haiti they were called "isolationists." I guess now similar sentiments about the most exciting liberal (properly understood) project since the end of the Communism are simply the stuff of enlightened "liberals." I wish they'd hurry up and switch their label back to "progressives" already so it would be easier to describe these illiberal liberals.

Kathryn chastises me for mentioning cloaking devices in defiance of a certain ban. But! by mentioning it herself she violates her own ban. Now -- stick with me as I wax Talmudic -- since Kathryn is the all-powerful goddess of the Corner, the violation of her own ban is much like the old conundrum "can God make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it?" It creates an impossible contradiction at first glance. But -- aha! -- Kathryn's mention of the cloaking devices lie deep within parentheses. Since she mentions cloaking devices -- a direct reference to subjects banned in this space -- inside these parentheses, perhaps she sees these symbols as cloaking devices of a sort themselves. Much like the "null-space" or "nullentropy bins" in the Dune, Marvel and other sci-fi universes, the normal rules of the Corner do not apply withing these other-dimensional pockets of the multiverse. Or for non-sci-fi types think Maxwell Smart and the Cone of Silence. Anyway, perhaps the famed (Star Trek) ban doesn't apply within parentheses. These parentheses are actually portals to (anti-matter universe) spaces where writing about banned topics (like Star Trek) is not only allowed, but required. Perhaps future posts could look like this:

PAUL KRUGMAN... [Jonah Goldberg]

Has an absolutely absurd column about social security private accounts (but not nearly so absurd as the fact that the seats on the Enterprise don't have safety belts. I mean these guys are flying at many times the speed of light and they're constantly being tossed out of their chairs. Isn't there some sort of United Federation of Planets OSHA which would require chair restraints of some kind?). Krugman completely fails to understand the fact that the changing demographics .... blah blah blah

See what I mean? Huh, do ya?

I'm a fan of Andrea Peyser and I've been meaning to write a column about why I think the Michael Jackson trial isn't merely tabloid trash but an important story. So I'm sypmathetic to Peyser's overall take. But I think this column -- linked on Drudge -- is simply insufficiant. It closes with the line: " He is not Peter Pan. He is a full-grown freak. And he must pay." I agree with the sentiment entirely, but the column doesn't demonstrate the important part of the conclusion -- that he must "pay." It supports the conclusion that he's a freak, but a picture could have done that almost as easily. The guy is on trial for what probably amounts to his life. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Michael Jackson is ill-equipped to spend 20 years in prison. And that would be true if here weren't an alleged child molester. I think he's guilty and must pay, but even in op-eds you've got to support conclusions like that.

In reporting the Supreme Court's decision to bar the death penalty for those under 18, the networks on Tuesday night stressed how out of step the U.S. had become with the rest of the world and ABC and CBS gave equal time to relatives of murderers as to victim's families. NBC anchor Brian Williams heralded how the ruling "ends a practice that drew ridicule for years from some of America's closest friends around the world." Peter Jennings trumpeted how "this brings the U.S. into line with much of the world." ABC's Manuel Medrano highlighted how "most of the world has already outlawed juvenile executions" and lamented how the U.S. "was among only a handful of countries permitting such executions." Medrano relayed how one woman "is relieved that today's decision means her father's death sentence will never be carried out." CBS's Jim Stewart passed along how a murderer's mother "was relieved, arguing that crimes committed as a juvenile don't deserve the ultimate grown-up punishment."

And in case the nuclear option is employed, Strickland says, Specter has hired a committee staffer who's well versed on the nuts and bolts of its execution. Dimple Gupta co-authored a Harvard law review article with Marty Gold (a former Frist parliamentary guru) which has been widely circulated among Senate Republicans as a go-to book for the what, why, and how of this complicated maneuver. Strickland suggests that Gupta's hiring should temper some criticism from conservative groups who were unhappy when Specter earlier hired a Democrat and former NAACP lawyer. The committee source contends Gupta was not hired to appease the right, but says the former Justice Department official will work on nominations.

Some funny stuff on new indications that Lincoln might have been gay from the New Yorker:

When Lincoln was a boy, he would walk twenty miles through the snow every morning to buy magazines.

Lincoln’s greatest regret was the movie version of “Phantom.”

Lincoln urged Congress to bind the nation’s wounds “with malice toward none, with charity for all,” although under his breath he murmured, “except for a certain red-headed lieutenant, and he knows why.”

When Lincoln was told that Lee had surrendered, he gasped and exclaimed, “Oh no she didn’t!”

Okay, last post on what I still maintain was a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry:

I am so glad your ponderings with regard to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon were done in the early morning and maybe before Ledeen wakes up. If he sees them, he might come by your place and bitch slap you off the sofa that has obviously taken temporary control of your mind.

It’s the oldest game in the world. The Saudi’s can’t embrace democracy because of the radical Wahhabi terrorist in their society (which they promote). Syria can’t leave Lebanon because of Hezbollah (which they fund). Saddam had to keep those Iranian-aligned Shia in the South under his thumb to prevent Shia law in Iraq. And who is going to be in charge of all those nukes in the former Soviet states if the USSR collapses?

This is only the biggest issue of the 21st century. Yes, it is possible that in this one particular case (Lebanon) that the elimination of military rule by a foreign power could lead to negative change instead of positive. But the U.S. needs to stick with our moral clarity on this one. The you-people-are-too-screwed-up-to-handle-your-own-freedom approach is so 20th century.

Okay, granted you only pondered and asked if anyone had written a solid analytical piece on the matter. But the truth is, everything I have read about this situation and every situation like it has been more ideological than analytical. You either believe that the winds of freedom can transform the Middle East as well as the world, or you only see the obstacles. History supports the former view. And if you want a great ideological piece on the matter, you need look no further than yesterday’s article on NRO by the man who even now may be on his way to your place.

Ironically, on Time magazine's webpage -- remember this is the Women-in-the-Sciences issue - there is a teaser for an on-line article titled, "Pretty Crafty: Women are sewing at home to make their own fashion statements" complete with links to websites named "getcrafty.com" and "craftster.org."

One wonders if the right brain knows what the left brain is doing over there at Time?

I've gotten several emails along these lines:

Dear Jonah,

I read about you asking for an argument as to why Hezbollah would not
control Lebanon if Syria withdraws. I am Christian Lebanese and here is my
take:

1- Syrian presence is not keeping Hezbollah in check but is giving it a
role beyond its natural size.

2- The support of Hizbollah is limited to a part of the Shiite community
which has a plurality but is still a minority in Lebanon.

3- Any attempt by Hizbollah to expand beyond Shiite areas will unite all
Lebanese against it. Hizballah knows that the West will arm the Christians
and Druze against Hezbollah in such an event. Hezbollah will never attempt
such a thing.

4- Most Hezbollah supporters are not interested in living under Islamic
law but only in the social benefits Hezbollah gives them and which is paid
for by Iran. Hezbollah gave up enforcing Islamic law even in areas it
controls. It's all about money. If the money flow is turned off, Hezbollah
will shrink to a fraction of its size.

5- The Lebanese Parliament has 128 seats divided 64-64 Christian-Muslim.
On the muslim half, the Shiites get only 27 seats. This the theoretical
ceiling of Shiite power. Today they only have 12 seats.

6- In a free Lebanon, Hezbollah will not have the power to continue its
fight against Israel. The Christians will call for peace with Israel. The
Druze and Sunnis will say not before peace in Israel-Palestine is
achieved. But Christians, Druze, and Sunnis will oppose Hezbollah exposing
Lebanon to Israeli retaliation. The net result will be the return to 1949
armistice agreement. It is the Syrian presence that allowed Hezbollah go
against the will of the majority. Without Syria, Hezbollah's hands are
tied.

Thank You

The sage of Frostburg, James Wolcott, smells another neocon conspiracy from "the usual suspects" over the threat from Hezbollah. As he takes time off from stroking his many cats, he strokes his crystal ball to see a new wave of bogus scare-mongering over the threat from Hezbollah here in the United States.

As to whether Hezbollah is an exceptional threat inside America's borders I'm fairly skeptical myself.

But what I find amusing about Wolcott's latest panty-bunching over perfidious neocons is his contention that the neocons have only recently invented the notion that Hezbollah is a bad bunch (Of course his use of the word neocon is typical lazy lefty nonsense typical of the Brits and people who want to be Brits). Anyway, in the last few years it was opponents of the war in Iraq (i.e. opponents of "neocons" in Walcott's understanding of the term) who wanted to elevate the status of Hezbollah. Senator Bob Graham said about 8 trillion times that Hezbollah was the "A-Team" of international terrorism. He even introduced legislation to amend the Iraq war resolution to include military strikes against Hezbollah. Hezbollah has killed at least seven American CIA officers, by the way. Which is one reason why hawks have always considered Hezbollah a serious threat.

And for the record, I don't think the sage's prediction will come true. Afghanistan -- not a trumped-up threat as he seems to imply -- is not Lebanon. The White House is succeeding with "soft-power" in the region and few people, neocons or others, are much interested in using anything else right now -- except in Iraq. His prediction is based on his bad faith reading of the past and his own biases against the "usual suspects."

A very good email from a student of these things:

Dear Jonah, Did I hear you give serious thought about a 'stability' argument in favour of the continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and against the democratic aspirations of the Lebanese people? I thought you guys were rubbishing anyone pushing the same argument in Iraq! Syria has always enjoyed playing the role of the arsonist and the fire department. The reason why Hezbollah did not disarm 15 years ago along with all the other militias in Lebanon, as stipulated in the Taef agreement that ended the war in Lebanon, is because the Syrians had other plans for it.

The question that answers your question is why does Hezbollah cling on to Syria's presence in Lebanon if it is in their favour that Syria withdraws?

In political terms, Hezbollah will be on a much shorter leash after the Syrian withdrawal. This is because a fully sovereign Lebanese government that is accountable to the people and not to its Syrian masters won't tolerate reckless behaviour from Hezbollah that will be only bring destruction to Lebanon (Notice what is happening with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian terror groups).

And in military terms, Hezbollah won't be the 800 pound gorilla. It is no match for the Lebanese army. And in fact, it is Syria that is stopping the Lebanese army from deploying in the south of the country, against the wishes of the international community, and against the Lebanese government obligation under UN Resolution 425 that Israel has complied with.

Hezbollah knows that irrespective of the deal they cut now with the opposition, their days will be numbered once the last Syrian soldier has left Lebanon, and that those pledging now to protect the 'resistance' after the Syrian withdrawal, will be asking the 'resistance' to get real and get with it once the Syrians are out. That is why Hezbollah won't be cutting a deal with the opposition until it sees that the Syrian withdrawal has become inevitable.

Me: I think I was pretty clear that my gut says that the stability argument is unpersuasive to me, but that I hadn't heard a forceful case directly on that point.

I should also say -- responding to some other emails on this whole thing -- my main reservation is not Israel. I think if this instability makes things worse for Israel in the short or medium term, that's perfectly acceptable. My main question was about Lebanon itself. If Syria leaves does Hezbollah run Lebanon and would that mean replacing one non-democratic ruling system for another? From what people are telling me, the answer is no. The "People Power" movement (I much prefer "Cedar Revolution" by the way) is not looking to replace one dictatorial regime with another. And if that's the case, great. Bring on the creative destruction.

I think Ramesh's emailer not only has it right but he undersells an even larger point. Almost no social institution or intervention has a single impact. As abortion went up in this country so did the anti-abortion movement. As usage of the death penalty increased so did the anti-death penalty movement.

Take the debate over pop culture. For some, most, people violence on TV is cathartic. For other people violence on TV is a how-to video. And for many others it's something in-between. All of these debates could use a healthy dose of the sort of realism which comes when one accepts that not all people "think like me."

But

From a reader in response to that sketchy story about the Million Mom March woman:

Jonah,

Didja notice that the woman blames the guns for the violence wracking her neighborhood, but defends the people who actually shoot them? Obviously, we must pity these people, whose minds are evidently controlled by evil masses of metal which spit out hot lead.

A fair point from a reader:

Hi Jonah,

Is it that you are upset the trailer will be shown on TV during the
OC? I think that is much more Fox's decision than Lucas's. Since the
trailer will be in theaters on Friday, March 11, they show it on TV
the night before, so that also limits which shows it can be attached
to.

Me: But what this reader fails to grasp is how irrational my anger towards Lucas is at this point. He may be blameless on the OC decision itself. All I said was that it's a reminder of his villainy which is why I would like to beat him with a bag of oranges. Indeed the phrase beat him with a bag of oranges might have been the tip off for some that I am immune to rational defenses of the man at this point. TK 421 where are you!

After the ceremony with the President, the team will go to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and visit with some of the soldiers. "Larry Lucchino took the trophy there the first week of January, and found it to be a very moving experience," said Steinberg. "Moving because these men and women and just came back from Iraq. The injuries in many cases were very sobering. Larry's description from that visit was that the attitudes of the men and women overwhelmed him. It was as meaningful a visit as I've ever heard him describe." So when the Red Sox got the invitation to go to the White House, Lucchino wanted to make sure they took advantage of all the opportunities presented to them. "This was [Lucchino's] idea," Steinberg said of the visit to see the soldiers. "He said, 'The Boston Red Sox are going to the White House, don't just turn around and come home. Make something more out of it. Go and see these soldiers and acknowledge to them that we know who the real heroes are.'"

Republicans faced another rude awakening yesterday when Sen. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat who has crossed party lines to support Mr. Bush's nominees, sent a letter to the White House asking Mr. Bush to withdraw his filibustered nominees.

"I am concerned with your decision to re-nominate judicial nominees previously nominated and not confirmed by the Senate in the 108th Congress," the freshman senator wrote to Mr. Bush.

"The decision reflects a sentiment contrary to the cooperative working relationship we need to develop to confront the many challenges we face. The decision to re-nominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness between the President and the United States Senate as an institution that is not helpful to our Nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters," Mr. Salazar wrote.

As non-partisan as Salazar might hope to be, what would he do as senator if the Democratic leadership asked him to join a filibuster against a Bush judicial nominee? “I would hope all nominees get up or down votes,” Salazar answered. “And the decision on an up-or-down vote should be based on whether or not the president’s nominee is qualified for the position.”

He said a mandatory up-or-down confirmation vote on any nominee within 120 days of the nomination being submitted (an idea that Bush himself has advocated) “is a thoughtful proposal and maybe one that should be pursued.”

Salazar also noted that he had joined in a letter of support with other states’ attorneys general for a Bush appeals court nominee from Idaho, William Myers, who was blocked by Senate Democrats’ filibuster threats on July 20 from getting a confirmation vote.

Two years after Roberto Alomar lobbied the Mets to hire a liaison to Hispanic players because of a perceived lack of sensitivity, the organization has left little doubt about its commitment to diversity. The Mets have the only Hispanic general manager in the game in the Queens-raised Minaya; a trusted deputy to Minaya in Puerto Rico-born Tony Bernazard; New York's first African-American manager in Willie Randolph; a major-league coaching staff that includes three minorities - two born in Latin America - and, according to the team, one of only two Spanish-speaking head trainers in baseball. ...

As for his diverse coaching staff, Minaya says it was formed in a colorblind manner. Still, the GM allows that the ability to communicate is one of his criteria in hiring. "A large amount of the players are Hispanic," Minaya says. "You want to be able to have the communication skills."

I'd run down stairs, take away his gruel, and hit him with a bag of oranges again.

The Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith trailer will premiere during Fox's O.C. on March 10.

The reason this bugs me is simple. It's just another reminder that someone convinced George Lucas and his entourage that the Star Wars movies were always intended for kids. In fact, I'm kind of surprised they aren't showing the trailer on Spongebob Squarepants.

If Lucas had made these new films grown-up movies that were accessible for kids, rather than kids movies which appealed to the nostalgia of grown-ups, he would have remained one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. He's still laughing his way to the bank, but the movies have become something of an embarrassment. I truly don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. The Incredibles was more oriented toward adults than Phantom Menace was. I know I've said this a million times, but the key to the original Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back was that they took themselves seriously. They didn't apologize for being sci-fi. If the audience thought sci-fi was stupid, that was on them. The worst thing about the new Star Wars films -- besides from being at times abysmally written generally ("I hate sand" indeed) -- is that they constantly wink at the audience; "we don't take ourselves that seriously."

Anyway, Kathryn's moving her finger dismayingly close to the button that activates my pain collar. So I'm going to go walk Cosmo now. He understands...

That's right, cloaking devices. The only question is whether or not Democrats in the Senate will complain that this research is another example of Bush unilaterally violating our treaty obligations including, of course, the Treaty of Algeron.

[Note: Kathryn cannot ban what she is not awake to see]

From a reader:

Jonah, as a longtime reader and admirer, I feel obliged to bring to your attention that the email you received and published in the Corner asking for more ninja anecdotes is an underhanded ploy in an esoteric game, a cunning gambit by evil forces who want you to be their pawn. What am I talking about? I am hesitant to describe it directly. Let me be very clear: If you bring up this subject on the Corner--the most divisive topic known to modern man--you will pay a serious price. You will not be able to claim ignorance when Kathryn brings the hammer down on you for your irresponsible thread-spawning, for you will have been duly warned.

But since I believe it is necessary for you to know what forces are trying to manipulate you, here it is, the Great Question:

Pirates or Ninjas?

That is the conundrum in its most basic form. Some might say "Which is better...?" or "Which is cooler...?" or "Who would beat up who?" Those are subsets of the essential question, as posed above. Everyone has an opinion. Men will go to their deaths to defend their answer. All other debates are like shadows on the cave wall, projected from the Pirate/Ninja question.

Do not be fooled: There is no compromise, and there is no third way. (Vikings? Robots? Ha! Vikings are pirates, and robots, as science fiction has proven, can be programmed either way.)

So, if you are really going to follow the advice of an apparent ninja-lover, you'd better think carefully about the consequences and know with absolute clarity what you are getting into.

Signed,

A Scurvy Mate who wants not to see ye perish...

Oops, Shannen, Ramesh, Jonathan, did I say something?

Do I think that the legal definition of what constitutes 'cruel and unusual' punishment can change over time? Yes. Do I think that the notion that a bright, shining line can always be drawn between 'law' and 'policy' is an illusion? Yes. Am I standing in the Corner's corner? Yes. Am I asking General Cornwallis for advice as to what to do next? Yes.

Thousands of demonstrators turned a square in Beirut into a sea of Lebanese flags on Monday night and exploded into riotous celebration when the government unexpectedly quit after a parliament debate on the killing of ex-premier Rafik al-Hariri.

The jubilant protesters left in the early hours of Tuesday only for a few hundred to return hours later, vowing to keep up their street protests until Syrian troops left the country....

More Northwestern feedback from an attendee:

Dude, you rocked. Your talk was hilarious as well as insightful. It was good to finally meet ya, and thanks for signing my NR with your "Groundhog's Day" article.

One suggestion: next time, tell more ninja stories. Peeps love anecdotes involving ninjas. (By "peeps" I mean myself and one other guy I know.)

Take care
--Scott

As I was travelling and working all day yesterday and today without much time for email, I seem to have missed a whole lot of chatter about a piece in Salon in which I allegedly said some supposedly outrageous things about torture and free speech or some some such. To be honest, I haven't read the piece yet. I postponed reading the email on the subject since I didn't have time. I've got to file a column, but something tells me I was misrepresented now that I've gotten so much email like this:

he concedes that it fundamentally contradicts what the United States stands for, "what undermines what we stand for," he says, "is the publication of all this information." ... "I do think there's a reason why the CIA does this stuff in secret, and why I think it should do a lot of things in secret. These things have a lot of propaganda value, both negative and positive, so I think we need to separate out what we think are 'good policies' from what the consequences are if those policies are publicized." Many progressives I know might, upon reading this gaudy putrescence, dream about chaining Mr. Goldberg to the floor in front of his computer for a 36-hour stretch, letting him squirm in his own feces and urine while listening to George Bush say "moooooolahs" and "nukular" repeatedly at 100 decibels. But none of my friends would turn their idle dreams of torture into reality no matter what the provocation, no matter how insidious the enemies of freedom like Mr. Goldberg become. Likewise, civil discourse with these spouters must remain an unfulfilled dream. The men and women Goldberg has aligned himself with secretly outsource torture to Egypt and Pakistan and then wonder why so much of the world sneers when America publicly urges these nations to make progress toward democratic rule. Dissent they view as treason, so what can there possibly be to discuss? Maggots are unmoved by argument.

When I'm done with my other stuff, I'll read the Salon piece and respond more, if warranted.

By invoking an imagined "trend" by state legislatures toward the statutory abolition of juvenile capital punishment, the Court effectively is allowing certain states to dictate policy in other states. States like Texas and Virginia now are bound by the policy preferences of legislators in Vermont and Oregon. It's the perfect, if perverse, complement to the Court's increasing invocation of foreign sources of "law," as a result of which the American people as a whole are to be governed by elites in Brussels. . . . Roper thus represents not just an assault on judicial restraint, but an offense against federalism.

The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

Nice to be home. Good to have gone. Given that I don't normally talk about such things, I think it went pretty well. Nice turnout of NRO fans (I would guess at least half of the 100-150 or so folks there). Went out for beers and grub with some of the more hardened souls. Was drilled with questions about K-Lo, Rich, Ramesh and Derb. Once again the youth had better things to do. What is happening to America's youth?

One annoying bit was that I forgot to pack a comb or brush and so I ended up getting out of the shower with my coif tres unkempt, not that I'm normally that kempt. One intriguing aspect of the evening is that I could swear Marlin Fitzwater was in the audience chuckling at the geek show on stage. I wanted to seek him out afterwards, but by the time I stopped saying hi to the NR-crowd he was gone. I'd love to know if that was him.

Anyway, here's a long and generous write-up by one of the attendees who also picked up the tab at the firehouse. So, send page impressions his way if you can. If it's an incentive, there's an absolutely hellacious picture of me.

And does that leave some rather awkward questions about the 18-21 age range? Well yes it does.

The return of politics to Iraq has had many blissful secondary consequences, one of them apparently minor but nonetheless, I think, important. When was the last time you heard some glib pundit employing the phrase "The Arab Street"? I haven't actually done a Nexis search on this, but my strong impression is that the term has been, without any formal interment, laid to rest. And not a minute too soon, either.

Marge: Do you want your son to grow up to be Chief Justice of the Supreme court or a sleazy male stripper?

Homer: Can't he be both like the late Earl Warren?

Marge: Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!

Homer: Now who's being naive?

I'll be brief. The greatest King of the Hill quote of all time.

PEGGY: Oh, give me a break. I don't see how having a girl on the team would ruin it. Did a woman judge ruin the Supreme Court? HANK: Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren.

In other contexts where individualized consideration is provided, we have recognized that at least some minors will be mature enough to make difficult decisions that involve moral considerations. For instance, we have struck down abortion statutes that do not allow minors deemed mature by courts to bypass parental notification provisions. See, e.g., Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, 643.644 (1979) (opinion of Powell, J.); Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 74.75 (1976). It is hard to see why this context should be any different. Whether to obtain an abortion is surely a much more complex decision for a young person than whether to kill an innocent person in cold blood.

the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

It's an argument that sidesteps the fact that cable news channels usually feature conservative and liberal guests in perfectly matched pairs à la "Crossfire." It's also an argument that shrugs off the very loud voices of conservatives on Fox News and talk radio - voices that no less a conservative than William Kristol has noted have provided "much more balance" in a media environment once criticized by those on the right as being too liberal.

K-Lo-

The original aphorism Stan Lee crafted in the pages of Spider-Man's first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15 (April 1962) goes like this:

With great power there must also come great responsibility.

(Here's an image of the exact panel from which these words come,

found at this website. )

Since then, it's been truncated in casual conversation to the less philosophically glorious "With great power comes great responsibility."

Peter Parker learned that the only thing that seperated him from villains like Dr. Octopus and the Green Goblin is that he knew that responsiblity MUST come with great power to be a force for good. Doc Ock, equally powerful, shed that great responsibility as quickly as they got their great power.

I'm an every day Corner reader, 10 times a day. I'd guess I have a problem, but who knows? Keep up the great work!

K-Lo,

Hank Hill does NOT wear a "wife-beater." He wears a plain, white , short-sleeve T-shirt. His neighbor, the loser Bill Deautrive, wears a wife beater, which is a sleeve-less white T, typically ribbed. Hank is a family man who misses voting for Reagan & sells propane & propane accessories. Please don't drag him down to Bill's level.

With President Putin's popularity in sharp decline, the Kremlin has set up a new Russian youth movement to ensure its control of the streets in the event of mass anti-government protests.

Hundreds of youths, many belonging to the president's cultural society "Walking Together", held a meeting in a house owned by the Kremlin Property Department to launch the group at the weekend. The organisation, which leaders hope will attract 300,000 members, was christened "Nashi" [Ours], a word which in Russian has chilling nationalist overtones.

When two outsiders – one from an opposition party, the other a journalist – sneaked into its founding conference, they were humiliated and one was beaten. ...

Let's leave aside for a moment the language battle that is already lost (the term "nuclear option," which we are now futilely trying to re-label "constitutional option" because the former term is so damaging to the cause, was evidently coined by a Republican -- Trent Lott). Check out this paragraph on the disagreement b/w Specter and Frist:

"One strategist said Specter was 'at odds' with Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on the order in which the committee, and possibly the Senate, would take up nominees. 'If you put out the "wrong" nominee first — one where the Democrats are more comfortable compromising — and they do get a vote and confirm, that would take some of the energy out of the filibuster-reform movement,' the strategist said."

Where do we get these "strategists"? This strategy has already been tried and failed miserably.

You may recall that at the very start of his first term, POTUS nominated about 11 candidates for the Circuit Courts of Appeals, including Miguel Estrada and a number of the others who have since been blocked and filibustered for 4 years. To my shock at the time, one of the original 11 was Barrington D. Parker Jr. -- a liberal Democrat who had been appointed to the bench by Clinton in 1993. The idea (which never had a prayer of working in practice) was that by extending the reasonable hand of bipartisan compromise and picking a Democrat who would sail through, POTUS would ease the way for candidates like Estrada. HAH! Parker did sail through (you may recall him as the author of the 2d Circuit opinion way back when that ruled the detention of Jose Padilla was unconstitutional), and almost everyone else got stymied.

These "strategists" are blinking reality -- the Dems don't consider one nomination as having anything to do with the next one. If they let an uncontroversial one (because he's/she's a non-conservative) it's not gonna have the slightest effect on their determination to block the next conservative nominee. All the "strategists" are thus doing here is helping the Dems make a phony public record that they are not obstructionists while not doing a single thing to advance the cause of getting good conservative judges on the bench. If we're gonna have that fight, we ought to have it while the public is paying attention -- not 6 weeks from now when everyone's moved on to something else.

[T]his has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power. Washington's challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace.

Without security, there is no liberty at all. The fact that government is made up of human beings, and that human beings are certain occasionally to abuse any powers given them, is surely a rationale for narrowing those grants of power; but not for eradicating them, or reducing them to a quantity that fails to protect or even to take account of the higher interest that impelled the grant in the first place. Individual abuses of dissent are bad, but undermining the framework that ensures the right to dissent is immeasurably worse. This, as Holmes intuited, is supposed to be a matter of degree.

Moral clarity, moreover, postulates that some evils are so palpable we need not further test them in the marketplace. There are relatively few of them, but they do exist and we need not fear we are wrong about them. Such recognition is critical to the functioning of a healthy society, and declaring an end to discussion of any conceivable value they may have is very far from declaring a tyrannical power to end discussion of any topic disfavored by government. Do we really need additional ideological thrust-and-parry to know, for example, that the advocacy of genocide, or rape, or the indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is condemnable under any and all circumstances?

Anxiety over “chilling effects” is the most curious and overwrought of all concerns. Is it realistic to believe that we would actually lose the benefit of any idea worthy of the name were we to ban the advocacy of terrorism? Al Qaeda, its precursors, and its facilitators have been aggressively prosecuted in this country for over a decade—and are now targets of military operations and seizures of assets. Far from having chilled dissent, this enterprise has produced an alphabet soup of Islamic support organizations, many of which brazenly insist that terrorism, especially in Iraq or against Israel, is merely a form of resistance; relentless and fearless protest from the likes of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch; and an entertainment industry (as well as a political cohort) that cannot bestow enough plaudits on Michael Moore. Exactly what meaningful dissent will we miss if we proscribe the advocacy of murder, or of militant Islam’s clarion call to violent jihad?

There are practical issues to be considered here as well. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, no terror organization in the world had been responsible for the slaughter of more Americans than the Iranian-backed Hizballah. Although its atrocities have been exhaustively documented, what has been little appreciated is the catalyzing role played by speech, especially broadcast advocacy, in its deadliness.

Congress, where members have sharply criticized oil-for-food, is also taking up Congo sex abuse. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., was to lead hearings on the issue Tuesday.

Smith has proposed a bill that would require troop-contributing nations to have codes of conduct in place. Otherwise, the United States would withhold funding for missions.

WOMEN'S SITUATION HAS IMPROVED, BUT SERIOUS CHALLENGES REMAIN, UN OFFICIALS SAY New York, Feb 28 2005 6:00PM

Women have gained ground in the struggle for equality with men over the past 10 years, but serious challenges remain, including the rise in trafficking of women and girls and their disproportionate representation in the ranks of the poor and those infected with HIV/AIDS, senior United Nations officials said today.

We can't just be against every single thing Bush does and say that is bad.

That's a pathetic platform.

As progressives, we have to be delighted to the good news coming out of the ME concerning democracy."

“Too good to pass up, this deal. Thanks very much. I look forward to reading them to my two older girls, ages 7 and 4.”

As Japan produces fewer children and more retirees, toymakers are designing new dolls designed not for the young but for the lonely elderly -- companions which can sleep next to them and offer caring words they may never hear otherwise.

Talking toys have become such a hit that some elderly people have embraced them as substitutes for the children who have grown old and deserted entire neighborhoods in the rapidly greying country.

The Yumel doll, which looks like a baby boy and has a vocabulary of 1,200 phrases, is billed as a "healing partner" for the elderly and goes on the market Thursday at a price of 8,500 yen (80 dollars).

Depressingly, Estrich’s crusade, no matter how bogus, will undoubtedly bear fruit. Anyone in a position of power today, facing accusations of bias and the knowledge that people are using crude numerical measures to prove his bias, will inevitably start counting beans himself, whether consciously or not. Michael Kinsley could reassure every female writer out there that Estrich has not cowed him by publishing only men for the next six months. It would be an impressive rebuff to Estrich’s blackmail. I’ll happily forgo the opportunity to appear in the Times for a while in order to get my pride back.

Got them yesterday. Thanks! The girls love Reddy the Fox. We did “one more chapter” five times last night.

Jackson Diehl has a good rundown of events in the Middle East. I'm not sure he gives the White House enough credit. But then again, this could all go south so credit could still turn to blame. His closer:

Virtually no one in Washington expected such a snowballing of events following Iraq's elections. Not many yet believe that they will lead to real democracy in Egypt, Lebanon or Syria anytime soon. But it is a fact of history that the collapse of a rotted political order usually happens quickly, and takes most of the experts by surprise. In early 1989 I surveyed a panoply of West German analysts about the chances that the then-incipient and barely noticed unrest in Eastern Europe could lead to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. None thought it possible; most laughed at me for asking the question.

If a Middle East transformation begins to gather momentum, it probably will be more messy, and the results more ambiguous, than those European revolutions. It also won't be entirely Bush's creation: The tinder for ignition has been gathering around the stagnant and corrupt autocracies of the Middle East for years. Still, less than two years after Saddam Hussein was deposed, the fact is that Arabs are marching for freedom and shouting slogans against tyrants in the streets of Beirut and Cairo -- and regimes that have endured for decades are visibly tottering. Those who claimed that U.S. intervention could never produce such events have reason to reconsider.

In Warner's account, women are increasingly leaving full-time work for full-time motherhood not because they are shaking off the baggage of feminism but because they are victims of economic forces they can't control - i.e., 60- and 70- hour workweeks that are incompatible with family life for both mother and father. And the return to home and child, needless to say, has not been good for women.

"At another time, in another culture, without this era's particular set of pressures, would Andrea Yates have become a supermom unhinged?" Warner writes of the Texas woman who drowned her five children in 2001. "Would she have killed her children?"

Warner resorts to the hyperbole of calling American mothers a group of Andrea Yateses waiting to happen because what she proposes next is so self-serving - and such a betrayal to ordinary American women - it will take the threat of mass child murder to bring it to being.

We need, she writes, "institutions that can help us take care of our children so we don't have to do everything on our own." Warner proposes that the government create a $50-billion-a-year early-education program, paid family leave and French-style mandatory, monthlong vacations.

From the AP:

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Thousands of demonstrators massed in central Beirut overnight to defy a government ban on protests on Monday ahead of a fiery debate in parliament over the assassination of the country's former prime minister.

Opposition groups have called a demonstration at central Martyrs Square and a one-day strike to coincide with the debate on Rafik al-Hariri's killing on Feb. 14 that for many recalled Lebanon's bitter 1975-90 civil war.

Interior Minister Suleiman Franjieh called on security forces in a statement on Sunday "to take all necessary steps to preserve security and order and prevent demonstrations and gatherings on Monday."

The Syrian-backed government's protest ban is due to come into effect at 5 a.m. (0300 GMT).

Late on Sunday, soldiers manning barriers set up in central Beirut stopped hundreds of protesters from entering Martyrs Square, which is near Hariri's grave.

Thousands of demonstrators draped in Lebanese flags had already gathered in the square, where patriotic songs blared from loudspeakers.

Protesters demanded the government resign and chanted "Syria get out" and "Freedom, sovereignty, independence."

Syria plays a powerbroking role in Lebanon, where it keeps 14,000 troops.

Opposition deputies and many ordinary Lebanese have held Syria and the Lebanese authorities either directly or indirectly responsible for Hariri's death along with 17 other people in a car bombing. Damascus denies any role and has described Hariri's killing as terrorism.

I was almost startled by how un-charming she was on Meet the Press yesterday. Keep in mind I don't normally find her charming, but she went so deep into the negative yesterday it was amazing. There's nothing particularly wrong with having prepared lines before you do national TV, but this was both so obviously a bit of schtick:

And look at us, and we're torturing people and we're outsourcing torture. The administration is trying to throw journalists in jail and basically trying to replace the whole press crew with ringers, including male escorts. I mean, even Nixon hated the press, but he never tried to actually do an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" thing with them. So as Tom has pointed out, it's a Pandora's box. There are good spirits and evil spirits that we've unleashed.

The reason you can tell it's schtick is that it's not very good analysis. The torture thing is a fair point. But the bit about "trying to put journalists in jail" is a remarkable stretch of the facts and the connection between Gannon and the White House is the stuff of lefty-blog fantasy. In other words, she went in with a line that she thought was more important -- because she thought it was funny -- than she thought it was true. It was in fact neither very funny nor very true and when delivered in that Eric-Alterman-twang not very effective either.

Via the New York Times yet another appalling story from the American prison system:

“Brian Tetrault was 44 when he was led into a dim county jail cell in upstate New York in 2001, charged with taking some skis and other items from his ex-wife's home. A former nuclear scientist who had struggled with Parkinson's disease, he began to die almost immediately, and state investigators would later discover why: The jail's medical director had cut off all but a few of the 32 pills he needed each day to quell his tremors.”

This just isn’t acceptable.

The Sunday Telegraph is today running a report that “President Bush's speech to European leaders last week was toned down at the last moment to avoid giving his support to the proposed EU constitution, after a strenuous lobbying campaign by conservative activists in Washington.” I’ve no idea how true this is, but if there is anything to the report that the President was even thinking of giving his support to the proposed constitution it shows that someone in the administration is not doing his (or, perhaps, her) homework.

Meanwhile in a report in its weekend edition the Financial Times had almost the opposite to say: “By coming out in favor of a “strong Europe” at the seat of European government in Brussels, Mr. Bush sided with the realists and against the neoconservatives who have a wary view of an integrated Europe.”

In some ways it is the latter report that is the more interesting. The Financial Times is a reliable mouthpiece for the Brussels bureaucracy, and we can assume that what it is saying reflects their spin. The Brussels line will thus, clearly, fall into two parts. The first is the assertion, reassuring to American’s remaining allies on the continent, that the US is comfortable with further integration, the second is the claim, designed to cement the constitution’s appeal amongst the majority of Europeans suspicious of the US, that it is those sinister ‘neocons’ who are at the bottom of efforts to thwart its passing.

Mark Steyn, meanwhile, has his own take on the situation. He’s too pessimistic about Europe’s prospects for my taste, but this is too good not to repeat:

”The new EU ''constitution,'' for example, would be unrecognizable as such to any American. I had the opportunity to talk with former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing on a couple of occasions during his long labors as the self-declared and strictly single Founding Father. He called himself ''Europe's Jefferson,'' and I didn't like to quibble that, constitution-wise, Jefferson was Europe's Jefferson -- that's to say, at the time the U.S. Constitution was drawn up, Thomas Jefferson was living in France. Thus, for Giscard to be Europe's Jefferson, he'd have to be in Des Moines, where he'd be doing far less damage.”

Ha!

From the executive producer of the (rather good) new Battlestar Galactica , in response to the question as to why one of his characters (a doctor, no less) smokes:

“I'm also frankly tired of all the anti-smoking p.c. crap that we're bombarded with these days and I decided that this was a world without all that. Call it my one sop to the idea of an idealized society, the notion that adults can make informed choices and not be nagged to death or run out of public spaces for making choices that others may not like or agree with.”

Via Room Twelve

On abortion specifically, he said, the party must commit to making abortions "safe, legal and rare" while maintaining women's rights to choose.

"The issue is not abortion," Dean told the closed-door fund-raiser. "The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do."

And Dean told the Hiebert fund-raiser that gay marriage was a Republican diversion from discussions of ballooning deficits and lost American jobs. That presents an opportunity to attract moderate Republicans, he said.

"Moderate Republicans can't stand these people (conservatives), because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue," Dean said, adding: "I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant."

And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

“A spacecraft that flies on sunbeams is about to begin its travels across the solar system. A group of American and Russian scientists are preparing to launch a probe with giant, wafer-thin plastic sails that can catch sunlight just as a yacht's sails fill with wind.”

Who says that technology cannot be beautiful?

Good – if depressing - piece from the London Sunday Times on the situation in Holland. One interesting angle in the story is the way in which the phenomenon of mass immigration has now intersected with membership of the EU to make an already tricky problem unmanageable.

“And what of the EU? "Migration has to be managed at a European level," Aboutaleb says. "But there is no common sense on asylum or illegals," he adds. Because EU passports are recognised throughout the union, the action of one country in accepting — or refusing — migrants affects others. Aboutaleb cites Spain as an example. In 2000, it had an amnesty of 250,000 sin papeles (illegals). This month, at a time of increasing controls elsewhere, it announced another amnesty. "Spain has perhaps a million illegals, in agriculture and construction," Aboutaleb says. "The moment they get an EU passport, they can move all over Europe." Fears that other countries would be affected have been confirmed. Within a few days, 10,000 illegals from other countries who hoped to benefit from the amnesty, many with false papers showing Spanish addresses, were turned back by Spanish border police.”

The Sunday Times then goes on to note that, when it comes to immigration, EU authorities are pursuing their own agenda. "Vladimir Spidla, the labour and social affairs commissioner in Brussels, claimed this month that rising age levels mean that Europe "needs to accept large numbers of economic migrants. Naturally, if you only look at the next two weeks, things look different. But in the EU we have to work on the long term and we definitely need immigration"."

Spidla, is, quite simply, talking nonsense. While a degree of controlled immigration of the skilled and the well-qualified into Europe is a good idea, the idea that in a continent of high unemployment there is a need to import a large number of workers is implausible in the extreme. What there is is a need to increase - and reward - productivity, but that's another question altogether.

What’s more, as this report from today’s New York Times notes, there are clear signs that discomfort with the effects of mass immigration into the Netherlands may be prompting emigration from that country, and that, Mr. Spidla, is not exactly the way to remedy a labor ‘shortage’.

Reasonably enough, the Sunday Times writer goes on to ask whether the EU is "part of the problem, or should it impose a solution? Some say that it is undermining the validity of the nation state, without creating a coherent alternative. The EU is fine for the elimination of customs barriers, but can it cope with more? "Europe has no cultural or political identity," argues Shmuel Trigano, a professor at the University of Paris-Nanterre. "Nor does it have common values. Its capital in Brussels is only an administrative and bureaucratic centre." The crisis in European identity, he has written, is likely to have "unforeseen and profound consequences".

Yes it is, and those who urge – or support – a deeper federalization of the EU (at least as currently envisaged) are being profoundly irresponsible.